I use Fusion to do this work in Resolve. It's extremely fast to deal with issues like this, but it's also very power hungry. I doubt highly your system would run it sadly. We have 64gb on our "modern" Ryzen 3950X build and it's slow at rendering and playing back Fusion jobs. Mind you, they're 4k and such, but still. In the past I've used a similar technique to yours, but in After Effects.

Every time you re-encode a .h264, you lose quality. Pro Res HQ is considered a "lossless" codec, there is no perceivable loss in quality no matter how many generations you re-encode.
This is why people master to formats like Pro Res, no matter how good or bad the source is.

That movement is very expensive to convert, the cost would be several thousand dollars for the movement alone. I was quoted $5k for the job on a moviecam years ago and that was back the parts existed. Andree Martin is the only person who could do it these days, but the savings you make by shooting 2 perf isn't really made up by the exorbitant amount of money put into the movement. Now a 3 perf conversion, that's doable and Andree may have the parts still.

I've been an Tungsten and HMI guy for years. I love experimenting with new things and a few years ago, I DP'd two industrial films back to back and on one we shot Tungsten/HMI and on the other, we were 100% LED, using a friends Arri LED kit. We had L series and Skypanels of various outputs and I gotta tell ya, I was very impressed. The first day we set them up, having never used them before, I was able to get the look I was after in some difficult mixed conditions (daylight bleeding into scene) and honestly, I was impressed. Where the output of the sources wasn't anything like that of a similar sized tungsten light, being able to adjust the color balance without resorting to gels and being able to run many sources off "house" power, were both incredible features. I was impressed with the light quality as well, it was the closest thing to Tungsten I've ever seen come out of an LED. I'm sad that show is the one I shot with the F55 because it's such a "cool" looking camera compared to Arri or Canon, but still I was able to do a satisfactory grade that didn't look completely like shit. lol 😛
Since then, I've shot with a lot more LED's and my experiences have been varied. I think that's part of the reason why so many people continue to prefer Tungsten because there are situations where it works great and situations where it doesn't. Tungsten always works great, there really isn't a situation outside of electricity and heat limitations, where it doesn't work. In those cases, if you have no choice, then you'll go for LED's. I think that's the power of LED, as an alternative to the mainstream solution.
I'm still a tungsten guy. There is no denying that I probably won't buy LED's anytime soon and I'll continue to expand my Tungsten inventory once I have more space. You can throw up a tungsten light and it will be perfect every time you turn it on, just like shooting on film. Ya know for fact, the results will be what you expect in post, without having to really worry about the nuances that make shooting with modern tech so tricky sometimes.

I agree. This thing has been tossed around the film groups on Facebook for a week now and I'm so over it. Absolutely nothing to see here. Who cares if some super famous musician had their boring music video shot on film. The hipster look doesn't make me wanna listen to the music anymore than if it was shot on 65mm.

What I meant was because the owner hadn't tested the camera before, there wasn't a "known good" status given to it. Thus, the list of probable causes isn't as straight forward as (it worked yesterday and now it doesn't), which is the case in most camera services.

Interesting display. My only gripe is that it's 16:9 UHD resolution and not 17:9 4k. 😞
I'm still using an antique LG 31MU97 still, it's only 300 nit, but it's 10 bit, 17:9 and true 4k. I just turn off the lights when doing a final grade. 😛

I mean, it was different for sure, but there were way more people in the process than today. So you spent more time at the lab for sure and it was a lot slower process.
I can find out how much editors got paid, I have a few friends who edited back then.